AS ELECTION DAY nears, Californians are getting mixed messages. On the one hand they are urged to vote because every vote counts.

We are also told why bother since President Barack Obama is expected to carry this bluest of states handily.

This analysis is a bit simplistic: Presidents are elected nationally but we vote in state elections where one’s vote carries as much weight as anyone’s, except that it may seem diluted when those in far less populous states are getting all the attention.

This results from the ingenuous compromise crafted by the republic’s founders, who, as a concession to the smaller states, created a “college of electors” that gives all states two votes for each senator and additional ones proportionate to their population.

The problem arises when a candidate can still lose with a majority of the popular votes but insufficient electoral votes — the dilemma for Al Gore in 2000.

To offset this disparity, California and seven other states with a total of 132 electoral votes have adopted a law that gives all of its votes to whoever wins the national popular vote. Currently, most states, excluding Maine and Nebraska, have a winner-take-all system that awards all the electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most votes in that state.

Two hundred and seventy votes wins the Electorial College’s election.

Obama’s advantage here and in other states with large numbers of Democratic voters — those such as New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania — can be neutralized by campaign strategies that key on a handful of perennial “swing states” where the electoral votes mean more than the popular vote majorities.

That’s the GOP strategy this time.

Four years ago, this worked well for Democrats when voters gave Obama a 10 million vote majority that was ample cushion as he captured 365 electoral votes in 28 states. The winning formula included victories in Ohio, Florida and Virginia, all of which Mitt Romney will probably need.

In addition, Romney would have to win either Iowa, Colorado or Nevada — all states Obama carried in 2008.

Electoral College opponents argue it negates the “one man, one vote” principle, discourages voter turnout other than in the swing states and could result in election of a minority president.

This invites debate over whether a candidate with only the slimmest lead in popular votes yet sufficient to capture a majority of the electoral votes has a justifiable claim to the presidency.

Supporters of the Electoral College say it promotes political stability by forcing candidates to forge geographically broader coalitions, and gives greater weight to smaller states that would otherwise feel disenfranchised with direct popular election.

Conversely, it may be rightfully asked if a system that discourages voter participation is inherently less representational and gives disproportionate influence to a handful of states is not more suitable to the political realities of a bygone age?

Richard Rubin of Strawberry writes about political issues and is president of a public affairs management firm. His email is rarassociates@sbcglobal.net